Young Eagles and Background Security Checks

Out of curiosity, I took the training.

I found the format and content acceptable, and it seemed to cover the ground adequately. Some of the questions were just basic regurgitation of the content just presented, but others weren't and did require a small amount of consideration. I even got a couple of questions wrong.

The presentation covered what was acceptable contact...a concern to me since I often hoist the littlest kids into the cockpit of my single-seat airplane when they're too young to fly as Young Eagles. This, thankfully, is still allowed.

I have to take a lot of corporate online training at work (Government procurement policies, business courtesies, ethics, security, hazardous waste handling, clean-room operations, etc.), and this was similar. Some of that training does ask questions right after each section of the material, like the YE training does.

Some suggestions:

1. The training needs to lead off with WHY it's necessary. Thankfully, there aren't any Young Eagles examples to use, but EAA needs to define the basic reason training became necessary. Something along the lines of, "Revelations of child abuse at several large organizations has shown the need for formal policies and training to protect the children. While there have been no reports of such abuse during Young Eagles events, EAA management has recognized the need for heightened awareness...."

2. The training needs some "DO" and "DO NOT" lists to provide easier-to-remember summaries of key aspects of the policies. These lists could also then be made available to members as a refresher just before an event.

3. There's a section on reporting abuse, where the first line is that any suspected activities must be reported. The trouble is, it doesn't say to WHOM. It does provide the data later in the section, but that was my big question when starting to read the page. I'd add the words "as described below" to the line that says reporting is required.

4. The presentation is visually uninteresting. It needs a photo or graphic to go with each section, rather than a "wall of words." Show a volunteer buckling a kid into a seat when the section talks about appropriate touching, show a kid in a two-seat airplane when talking about the two-seater policy, etc. The pictures can be generic, but images would give a little more life to the thing. EAA had six months to put this together...supposedly.... so it should be more professional.

5. On the same note, would it kill ya to use a larger font?

The training itself just took 5-10 minutes, so folks don't need to be too concerned about it. I *still* wouldn't agree to the background check, but owning a single-seat aircraft, the issue is moot.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cub builder

I don't think anyone on here thinks the EAA staff has bad intentions, but rather badly misguided good intentions as evidenced by creating a program in a vacuum without including those that it will affect the most. But the end result may be the same. A badly damaged program, a loss of membership, and a general distrust of the EAA leadership.

---

Well said.

So, what will be needed for the leadership to regain members' trust?

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

I have to wonder if EAA's insurance carrier is driving the background check requirement. The last time we renewed our church's insurance policy the carrier was really clamping down on probationary periods (background checks) and policies for those involved in children's education programs. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is in play with the EAA.

---

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly.

---

Then why did you mention it?


BJC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly.

---

Then why did you mention it?

---

Well... Sam's a solid dude, and has been here for quite a while. I trust him. It's a interesting bit of information...though it does get the little curiosity antennas wiggling a bit.

A previous poster mentioned (waaaay back in this thread) a close call involving a YE event, it's possible the policy is stemming from that.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Well... Sam's a solid dude, and has been here for quite a while. I trust him. It's a interesting bit of information...though it does get the little curiosity antennas wiggling a bit.

A previous poster mentioned (waaaay back in this thread) a close call involving a YE event, it's possible the policy is stemming from that.

Ron Wanttaja

---

I'm not suggesting that I don't trust him; I don't even know him.

I just don't like posts that tease "I know something about it (the subject being discussed) but I can't tell you". Better to have left it out of the post.


BJC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey

Then why did you mention it?


BJC

---

The point of my post was to retract what I had posted earlier about insurance carriers being a driving force. 'Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

The point of my post was to retract what I had posted earlier about insurance carriers being a driving force. 'Nuff said.

---

Thus leaving the lawyers as the driving force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rv builder

Thus leaving the lawyers as the driving force.

---

Well... I tend more to think that people at headquarters became concerned of a potential problem, and took steps to bring the organization in line with other youth-oriented activities. I'm sure legal counsel was consulted, but probably wasn't the primary driver.

Let's take a look at some good postings from the past that tend to support this. First, Jim Cunningham, in Post #124:

I am very familiar with a chapter which it turned out had a registered sex offender as a member. The chapter did not know of his status until he left the area. This person was terrific, well liked, and an excellent volunteer. He never attended YE activity, and in retrospect now we know why.

This was a "near miss" (in the sense that the person was a sex offender, but hadn't participated in Young Eagles), but Mark van Wyk in Post #132 provided a specific case:

A Ramsey man [Chad Michael Geyen] who used to volunteer with youth faces more charges of sexual abuse against children....The father of two has a private pilot's license and volunteers with the Experimental Aircraft Association's Young Eagles program, which coordinates flights with volunteer pilots for young people interested in flying.

Geyen has flown with more than 100 Young Eagles.

Mark provided a full link at: http://www.twincities.com/2014/01/22...al-abuse-case/

So, with the knowledge of these events, EAA Staffer Bret Steffen's explanation has the strong ring of truth (Post #93):

There have been incidents in the past three years where YE pilots have been accused of illegal activities regarding youth outside of the program. While not directly linked to the program this has highlighted the fact that EAA has not kept step with the current practices of vetting people who have contact with children. The need for a youth protection policy became an obvious need and was not driven by any single factor, lawyer, or insurance company.

So, I think it's reasonable for EAA to implement such a program.

I think (and Bret confirmed it in a later posting) that EAA *really* dropped the ball in implementing this. In addition, I believe EAA seriously compounded the problem by claiming that membership had been warned this was coming. The outrage expressed here shows that the coming policy had not been adequately discussed with the membership prior to release, as is the dearth of mentions of the coming changes in the organization's official publication.

Finally, we come to the background investigation issue. It's ironic to note the differences in the two cases above. In the case described by Mr. Cunningham, a background investigation may have revealed the previous convictions...except the person involved did not participate in Young Eagles, anyway and no investigation would have been made. The Geyen case Mr. van Wyk referenced involved an active predator flying Young Eagles... except it was, apparently, the first time he was caught and the background investigation would have given him a clean bill of health!

Many people, such as myself, do not like continued intrusion into our lives and losses of privacy. We chose not to cooperate; not to hand our private data over to an outside entity that collects it solely for profit and gives us no insight or control into what's done with the data afterwards. It's a matter of conscience, and a decision that should be left to each member without argument.

It's obvious the new policies are going to drive some formerly-dedicated participants out of the Young Eagles program. That this would happen should have been perfectly predictable. But I am deeply concerned that the EAA didn't anticipate this, and seems surprised by the reaction. Just because we're the "rank and file" doesn't mean we're smelly and as rough and dumb as an iron bar. When you're going to make major changes, please let us in on the planning.

Ron "I am not a number!" Wanttaja

Each time I try to read a response by clicking on it or reply Norton which is current running W10 pops up and says virus prevented.What's up on this site.Now back on topic. If the VA can loose millions of pieces of data on people, schools hacked into, and credit cards sold or stolen. Convince me that someone saying pleasegive us your SS, and all your ID,, trust us we won't let it get stolen.This is still the big crux of the issue that many have difficulty. I just completed a full background check for the LASP and then EAA wants another. Next it will be insurance co wants same info. SS number should only be used forSS purposes and not ID, it was never intended for identification or background checks.We have an obligation to protect the innocent. This means if we can't protect kids at ANY event, park, mall, EAA doesn't matter where. we need to look at our values.If someone at an EAA event is in any way injuring children and someone knows and doesn't stop it immediately they are guilty of the act.I have NO tolerance for child abuse, but find it offensive to provide all my ID info for a 2nd background check in the same month. There should be a way to just verify background in one place and not require it every time I buy a candy bar at the store.Ok venting a bit. I have completed the EAA requirements and kept the proof of that completion to fly YE's. But I don't like the background check and probably won't do another.

Ron- you are closer to seeing the workings of HQ than the rest of us hoi polloi.

Is EAA Inc more interested in itself than achieving the goals of the membership?

i am hoping that your answer favors the later, but even so, the relationship doesn't seem to be a positive amplification. Any clue how to reconnect the two components? Is there an organizational equivilant to marriage counseling?

ted

I would like to follow up on some of Ron's observations.

I wrote before that this SHOULD be a risk management program. Identify the risks and the apply risk treatment measures appropriate reducing exposure or mitigating effects. Effective risk management uses Einstein's Constraint, with the goal of making the risk treatment measures as simple as possible, but no simpler. Training is almost always an appropriate risk treatment measure. (That is, if the training effectively addresses the risks.) Sometimes, training alone is enough. An operational practice which implements the training and can reduce UNNECESSARY exposure, mitigate potential effects, and is flexible enough to adapt to particular circumstances can also be important. Additional practices which are needlessly complex, interfere with operations (i.e., achieving the desired outcome of the program), and/or opens up new risks, are rarely warranted. This is particularly true for actions that sound good but analysis shows would not significantly reduce exposure or mitigate risk.

But we are all pilots and should already have an operational understanding of this. MOST of the comments here demonstrate that understanding, if not expressed in generic risk management terms. (According to the poll, that would be about 89% of us.)

So, "What does that mean to us Wookies?" (1) EAA management should review the YE program using solid risk management criteria. (2) EAA management should then explain their proposed risk treatment to those who will be affected by it. (3) I strongly support training. I have not taken the training yet, nor has EAA management explained its risk analysis, so I am unable to evaluate it against the risks. Ron says it is OK and I will accept his opinion on that. (4) Based on what little I have read about EAA management's perceived risks, the discussion here, my experience with other such programs, and the way I have seen the YE program work, I strongly believe that the background checks are unwarranted. They will not help reduce exposure in any significant way. They increase risks to the adult volunteers and will add unnecessary burdens to the program, risking overall program failure. The background checks MIGHT mitigate effects to the EAA as a corporation should an undesirable event occur. Might. Maybe. To some unknown degree. They could also increase risks to EAA corporate WHEN an EAA volunteer becomes a victim of some crime associated with breach of PII and that breach can be traced to the EAA mandated background check. (Hmmm…just speculating here, but which might be the more likely event?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedK

Ron- you are closer to seeing the workings of HQ than the rest of us hoi polloi.

---

Not any more... like I mentioned a few posts back, I'll probably have to lie low on my next visit. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedK

Is EAA Inc more interested in itself than achieving the goals of the membership?

i am hoping that your answer favors the later, but even so, the relationship doesn't seem to be a positive amplification. Any clue how to reconnect the two components? Is there an organizational equivilant to marriage counseling?

---

Everyone I've worked with at HQ is sincerely interested in what the membership wants, and in making the organization better. I've never worked with the Young Eagles folks, but I have no reason to believe it's any different with them. When you walk through the working areas at headquarters, the private spaces (e.g., cubicles) are FILLED with aviation stuff. I haven't seen a cat picture yet.

Obviously, HQ can't limit its hiring to only aviation nuts. But being around EAA HQ does apparently tend to infect folks. For instance, IIRC, Glory mentioned that she's taking flying lessons through the EAA club.

As in any organization, though, there's a transition as you move higher. At some point, EAA HQ has to change from a bunch of airplane nuts to a modern non-profit corporation; mission statements have to change from "What makes the organization fun" to "How do we ensure the continued survival, viability, and growth of this 501(c)(3) corporation." I haven't had much interface with folks at those levels.

What percentage of those higher people are airplane nuts? How many had models hanging from the ceiling as kids? How many have skinned knuckles from digging under the cowling of an Acro Sport? How many have kept frozen, glassy smiles towards their spouses as they explained how the airplane needed a $3,000 XXXXX because of FAA rule changes? How many have sat on a chair at fly-in after the day's flying is done, listening to the tick-tick-tick of cooling engines while sharing a cooler-iced beer with like-minded buddies?

EAA was blessed in having a founder who did all these things. While there were grumbles and mutterings about nepotism and empire-building, his son had an EAA-immersive upbringing and, I think, the same love for aviation.

But...the supply of Pobereznys is not infinite. The organization DID have to mature with the times. Counting beans doesn't take an aviation nut, nor does being a corporate lawyer, managing the HR department, or being the the mid- or higher-level manager who oversees such activities.

Yet, remember: It doesn't take an airplane nut to be good at jobs like these. Some may say it might even be an impairment....

http://www.wanttaja.com/pilot.jpg

What I'm trying to say, in my usual long-winded way, is that while the members' goals will have priority at the lower-levels of the organization, the upper level's primary mission is the protection of the corporation. And, of course, when it push comes to shove, the upper leadership's goals with be pre-eminent. Not much will change that, save, perhaps, if a Paul Poberezny-like leader is available at the next regime change.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

As in any organization, though, there's a transition as you move higher. At some point, EAA HQ has to change from a bunch of airplane nuts to a modern non-profit corporation; mission statements have to change from "What makes the organization fun" to "How do we ensure the continued survival, viability, and growth of this 501(c)(3) corporation." I haven't had much interface with folks at those levels.

What I'm trying to say, in my usual long-winded way, is that while the members' goals will have priority at the lower-levels of the organization, the upper level's primary mission is the protection of the corporation. And, of course, when it push comes to shove, the upper leadership's goals with be pre-eminent. Not much will change that, save, perhaps, if a Paul Poberezny-like leader is available at the next regime change.

Ron Wanttaja

---

The problem is when the "head" ceases to understand that it needs the body and becomes a totally self serving entity. The roar of silence from national and the milquetoast letter from Pelton speaks volumes right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

The organization DID have to mature with the times
....
the upper level's primary mission is the protection of the corporation. And, of course, when it push comes to shove, the upper leadership's goals with be pre-eminent. Not much will change that, save, perhaps, if a Paul Poberezny-like leader is available at the next regime change.

Ron Wanttaja

---

And mature it did...right into AOPA II.

Frankly, if it weren't for getting a discount on my insurance by being a member, I doubt I'd keep my membership up any more. I let my AOPA membership lapse years ago as there was virtually nothing in the organization for me. The same is quickly becoming true for EAA (if it hasn't already).

I don't mind an organization's managers doing what's necessary to protect it. But if 30 years go by and the organization didn't feel the "need" for some program or policy, why do they "need" it now? What's changed? Doesn't appear to be any significant risk here, based on 3 decades of data.

"Everybody else is doing it" is NOT a valid reason, IMO. "The lawyers told us we had to" isn't either. Neither is "I'm afraid! Something BAD might happen someday!".

As others have said...show us demonstrable risk that is non-negligible, and an analysis of all options to deal with such a risk if it exists, that leads to a cogent mitigation plan. Not just what other people *say* is "best practice".

'"I am very familiar with a chapter which it turned out had a registered sex offender as a member. The chapter did not know of his status until he left the area. This person was terrific, well liked, and an excellent volunteer. He never attended YE activity, and in retrospect now we know why.

This was a "near miss" (in the sense that the person was a sex offender, but hadn't participated in Young Eagles), but Mark van Wyk in Post #132 provided a specific case:

A Ramsey man [Chad Michael Geyen] who used to volunteer with youth faces more charges of sexual abuse against children....The father of two has a private pilot's license and volunteers with the Experimental Aircraft Association's Young Eagles program, which coordinates flights with volunteer pilots for young people interested in flying.'

***************
I see we have devolved to the "anecdote standard." Just a few questions to chew on before we get too far up on our high horses. I'm getting a little nosebleed myself from all this moral high ground.

Couple of things: firstly, unless I woke up in Russia this morning, accusation and conviction are two different things, and in America, the accused is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty." You either believe that or you don't, and all the crawfishing, finessing, and hair-splitting about, You-Can't-Be-Too-Careful are non-starters, IMHO.

Secondly, I have seen some of these "sexual abuse" cases firsthand, and while that does not appear ON THE FACE to be the case above, that is exactly the kind of accusation now in vogue with women's divorce lawyers in order to apply leverage, when both parties know it's a damned lie, so vide supra and think carefully before judging an "accused," especially when all you know is what you have been told by a third party.

Thirdly, I am also familiar with two men who have been convicted of the above. Both cases involved young men somewhat OVER 18 who were doing the horizontal mambo with girls who were younger, but still in their age group, generally. I think they referred to themselves as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend." Now these fellows will have to register the REST OF THEIR LIVES, for doing that very-normal thing which young people in the course of human history have never been able to resist.

Fourthly, unless I woke up in Russia AGAIN, when you serve your time or do your particular sentence, you are supposed to have Paid Your Debt to Society. What happened to that? How does a sex offense become a life sentence, with lifetime reporting and restricted living location?

It's very, very easy to succumb to that human desire to regulate others; very, very hard to undo it. I see no credible reason for any of this nonsense, and from like responses in my local chapter, it looks like Young Eagles is, for us, a thing of the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbob

Fourthly, unless I woke up in Russia AGAIN, when you serve your time or do your particular sentence, you are supposed to have Paid Your Debt to Society. What happened to that? How does a sex offense become a life sentence, with lifetime reporting and restricted living location?

---

With a recidivism rate of about 35 % for those who molested a male child, society should keep an eye on past offenders.

see : http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rstood-crimes/


BJC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rv builder

I don't mind an organization's managers doing what's necessary to protect it. But if 30 years go by and the organization didn't feel the "need" for some program or policy, why do they "need" it now? What's changed?

---

Awareness, mostly.

The problem certainly isn't new. But the *magnitude* of the problem didn't become clear until the last several decades.

I'm 61 years old. When I was growing up, I received sniggered warnings to watch out for "funny uncles." I had no idea what that meant, nor what I should do if one of my uncles told me a joke.

Since then, a lot of horrid cases have been revealed, and societal decisions have been made for increased vigilance. Kids
now receive a pretty good bit of warning. Those who work closely with children are not only checked themselves, but are given training to help them spot instances where kids might be undergoing abuse outside their immediate purview.

Because of the increased awareness, we hear of more cases. And, happily, the predators are caught earlier.

Are all of them caught? And caught quickly? Of course not. Note the Geyen case that Mark posted. Geyen was 44 years old. He hadn't started that week, that month, that year, or probably even that decade. Some of these people are extremely clever, and some of them never will be caught.

But many aren't that smart, and with proper vigilance, they can be caught and stopped.

Jimbob has a valid point about "anecdote standards". But there are some folks who say, "It has never, and WILL never happen, in a Young Eagles environment." The anecdote merely proves that this attitude is incorrect.

And, of course, "Data" is not the plural of "Anecdote". It would be good to have actual data to work with, to help, as RV Builder says, establish what the actual risk is.

One or a hundred, though, would be immaterial if EAA ever got sued. If an EAA official, in court, says, "There hadn't been enough instances to justify a prevention program," the plaintiff's attorney would respond, "What to you consider an acceptable level of child sexual abuse?" And EAA would have totally lost the jury.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

One or a hundred, though, would be immaterial if EAA ever got sued. If an EAA official, in court, says, "There hadn't been enough instances to justify a prevention program," the plaintiff's attorney would respond, "What to you consider an acceptable level of child sexual abuse?" And EAA would have totally lost the jury.

---

And that is how we ended up with $400K Cessnas. But I digress.

Suppose that someone builds their own plane, relying in large part on EAA's "Hints for Homebuilders". They then crash and kill themselves, and the survivors sue EAA because of that builder's reliance on those videos (and there are a few which promote somewhat questionable practices). Should EAA, as a "preventive" measure just *in case* they ever get sued delete all those videos? EAA official in court: "There hadn't been any instances of someone relying on them and then dying because of it". Plaintiff's attorney: "How many deaths would you consider an acceptable level?"

Running around afraid of everything that might ever happen someday isn't leadership...it's cowardice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rv builder

Suppose that someone builds their own plane, relying in large part on EAA's "Hints for Homebuilders". They then crash and kill themselves, and the survivors sue EAA because of that builder's reliance on those videos (and there are a few which promote somewhat questionable practices). Should EAA, as a "preventive" measure just *in case* they ever get sued delete all those videos? EAA official in court: "There hadn't been any instances of someone relying on them and then dying because of it". Plaintiff's attorney: "How many deaths would you consider an acceptable level?"

---

Oh, if the EAA was worried about that, we'd see more emphasis on production aircraft, and expensive TSO'd avionics, and....

Geeze. Wait a minute. :-)

Your point is perfectly valid, and one must assume there's been SOME thought given to risk control at national. They must have put SOME thought into where they might need additional protection, or whether they can continue as they have been. One factor: juries are likely to be less sympathetic to a guy killed flying a "home-made" airplane, than an abused eight-year-old.

Ron Wanttaja

The only way to eliminate all risk with the Young Eagles program is to make it go away, yep looks like they are well on their way to eliminating the risk !!!!!!. I will call this what it is " Politically Correct BS ". And I for one am completely sick of it. I have no problem with education and awareness training , the background checks are another matter entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Oh, if the EAA was worried about that, we'd see more emphasis on production aircraft, and expensive TSO'd avionics, and....

Geeze. Wait a minute. :-)

Your point is perfectly valid, and one must assume there's been SOME thought given to risk control at national. They must have put SOME thought into where they might need additional protection, or whether they can continue as they have been. One factor: juries are likely to be less sympathetic to a guy killed flying a "home-made" airplane, than an abused eight-year-old.

Ron Wanttaja

---

Yeah, but all it takes is *one* jury, right? After all, I'm quite sure that many more people have been killed in their EABs than have been molested by YE pilots (based on the data available, it's apparently whatever-to-zero).

Our chapter had a YE event yesterday, we flew 30+ kids with 4 airplanes (6 in my 6A). With the new requirements it would not have been possible because of the number of adults needed. After all the discussion on this board I was careful how I belted them in and helped them out. The parents did come out to the airplane for photos but once I started belting them in the parents left. This made the whole experience not fun. I would take the training but not the back ground check so I am out. I believe this policy will make the parents nervous having to sign this and that and wondering why?

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly.

---

Well, the EAA sure as hell should provide this info to THE MEMBERSHIP. This is another example of how the EAA does not care about the membership as members and treats us as workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssmdive

Well, the EAA sure as hell should provide this info to THE MEMBERSHIP. This is another example of how the EAA does not care about the membership as members and treats us as workers.

---

Workers get paid; EAA members pay to volunteer.


BJC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Aulik

I don't have a specific date, but I would say sometime this week, if not early next!

---

Gloria:

Did I miss the promised update on how this issue will be resolved?

I did see Pelton's memo, but that does little to resolve the issues.

Thanks,


BJC

Anyone else find it ironic that the EAA forums are now under attack?
The forum is hosted by a vendor and now currently fighting off an attack... Just like many of us were afraid that our personal information given to another vendor would be subject to attack and compromise.

Folks truth is always better than fiction. This just reinforces the argument of why we don't want to give the EAA or anyone our personal information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssmdive

Anyone else find it ironic that the EAA forums are now under attack?
The forum is hosted by a vendor and now currently fighting off an attack... Just like many of us were afraid that our personal information given to another vendor would be subject to attack and compromise.

Folks truth is always better than fiction. This just reinforces the argument of why we don't want to give the EAA or anyone our personal information.

---

I would like to correct the misinformation, our site is not currently under attack. That is a mischaracterization of some of the login issues we've seen that pop up from time to time with each individual's virus / malware protection. It can happen with the big sites, as much as smaller sites like ours.

As virus and malware definitions are always being updated they can trigger issues with websites, message boards, forums, etc.

There is no attack on our forums, and the login issue is completely unrelated to our Youth Protection Policy.

We continue to work with our internal team, and external partners to resolve such issues. Most go completely unnoticed, or are a result of an individual's software configuration on their machine.

Thanks,
Dennis

And this all boils down to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rv6mike

This made the whole experience not fun.

---

Flying YE is not our civic duty. It's not like helping at the shelter, donating blood or even helping that stranded motorist at the side of the road. We do it to promote the love of our hobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rv6mike

I believe this policy will make the parents nervous having to sign this and that and wondering why?

---

There is nothing additional to sign and the parents would never notice a difference. The YE registration form is the only form that needs to be signed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dusterpilot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rv6mike

I believe this policy will make the parents nervous having to sign this and that and wondering why?

---

There is nothing additional to sign and the parents would never notice a difference. The YE registration form is the only form that needs to be signed.

---

There is, IIRC, some sort of warning required before flying their kids in a two-seat airplane. This may attract their attention. Not only are most experimentals two-seaters (giving a reduced choice of aircraft), from my long-ago experience with YA, most kids WANT to fly in the two seaters (because they'll probably get to fly the plane).

I would suggest the YE form be modified to include a permission block for the parent to check off if they're OK with the kid flying in a two-seater.

Ron Wanttaja

OK, something I don't fully understand - if in a 4 seat plane is the thought to have another adult present? If so I don't think that will work unless everyone is flying at least a 182. I know my instructor & I were at max gross weight in the 172R by ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Switzer

OK, something I don't fully understand - if in a 4 seat plane is the thought to have another adult present? If so I don't think that will work unless everyone is flying at least a 182. I know my instructor & I were at max gross weight in the 172R by ourselves.

---

From the EAA Youth Protection policy:

"...a minimum of two adults who have completed the EAA Youth Service Standards process described above will be in attendance as supervisors of all Youth at all times....'Attendance as supervisors' requires that the person must be present and actively circulating through the areas in which services are being provided, in order to monitor all activities for appropriate behavior."

"....Due to the nature of some EAA-related programs (e.g., Young Eagles aircraft rides), there are times when it will be impossible or impractical for two (2) adults to be present in an activity involving a Youth. In such cases, the staff member or volunteer should take particular care to ensure that the Youth and their parents are aware of the circumstances."

A 172 should be able to carry two adults with a small child in the back seat. So it's not "impossible or impractical" to carry two adults on the flight, just very, very inefficient. And probably not as much fun for the kid, who won't even see much of the instruments.

In short, we need a definition of "impossible or impractical". If the policy had been as thoroughly vetted with the membership as EAA has claimed, this issue probably would have come up long ago.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey

With a recidivism rate of about 35 % for those who molested a male child, society should keep an eye on past offenders.

see : http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rstood-crimes/


BJC

---

According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the recidivism rate for all violent offenders is 61.4%, which theoretically makes sex offenders significantly less likely to commit a similar crime again. Not that I am advocating NOT keeping an eye on people who have a track record of having done bad things. Forgive, but don't forget. In any case, the process proposed by EAA should be more than sufficient to limit exposure (opportunity for and undesirable event.)

Ron, agreed that as written the one or two adult per plane is unclear. CAP initially had similar language when it instituted its Cadet Protection Program. It was quickly amended to allow single adult to cadet contact for flight training and orientation flights. It is amazing that this lesson learned was not incorporated into the initial EAA policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dusterpilot

There is nothing additional to sign ...

---

After 01 May 2016 there will be at least three additional documents that the attorney-in-fact for each minor I fly will be required to sign and have notarized on behalf of the minor child prior to arriving at the YE rally. They are (1) A specific performance personal services contract, (2) a subrogation and indemnification agreement naming the EAA as the exclusive sole defendant party for all actions, and (3) an MPAA / CSA /SAG compliant unlimited still and video photography rights release.

Of course, unless the EAA changes the YEYPP drastically between now and then, this requirement will never be enforced because I will simply refuse to continue my participation in this debacle.

I have been informed that the EAA Chapter 62 Young Eagles event at San Martin Airport (E16), scheduled for May 13, 2016 will proceed as normal. I do not know how many pilots have completed the background check and training. The event normally flies as many as 200 kids. I must say I am confused about the policy for 4-seater airplanes. Do there need to be 2 adults in the plane for each flight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk

I have been informed that the EAA Chapter 62 Young Eagles event at San Martin Airport (E16), scheduled for May 13, 2016 will proceed as normal. I do not know how many pilots have completed the background check and training.

---

According to the FAQ, each volunteer should receive a printable wallet card via email that establishes they meet the requirements. Only thing I can think of is to call your pilots ~1 month out and ask if they have it.

As for the 2 Adults per aircraft issue, I'm hoping they answer that quickly. Average ten-year-old boy weighs half the FAA-standard for an adult. The math isn't good.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Copapilot

After 01 May 2016 there will be at least three additional documents that the attorney-in-fact for each minor I fly will be required to sign and have notarized on behalf of the minor child prior to arriving at the YE rally.

---

Assuming the "C" in your handle stands for "Canadian" you don't have a problem:

"At the publication date of this Policy, EAA is not yet able to provide background checks in Canada because of unique Canadian laws."

Those pesky Canadian privacy laws, apparently. Us 'Mericuns don't have to worry about those.

Ron Wanttaja

I attended our regular chapter meeting yesterday afternoon. This issue has definitely set off an angry firestorm among our members. Of the four regular YE pilots in attendance (one being me) , three of them most likely will not comply. This will essentially kill our YE program, and perhaps the very existence of our chapter. We have a small chapter, and the cohesive force holding it together was the YE program. I now fear this will be our demise. What is so hard for me to believe, is that nobody at headquarters had any inkling what this would do? That is scary in itself. One members suggestion was for us to form a private club, and essentially run the same program under it's banner. I think that may get some traction.

Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc

Ron, agreed that as written the one or two adult per plane is unclear. CAP initially had similar language when it instituted its Cadet Protection Program. It was quickly amended to allow single adult to cadet contact for flight training and orientation flights. It is amazing that this lesson learned was not incorporated into the initial EAA policy.

---

"Must....keep....from posting....another....snarky....comment......about ....how much....this was....supposedly coordinated with membership...."

Ron "Self-control R Us" Wanttaja